Post Your Comment

35 Comments

I'll wait until cannon comes out with their new tech that they won in court over or OLED comes out. I'd spend over 1K for a 24" OLED 1900x1200 computer monitor. For now I'll just hang on to my CRT. LCD panels them selves haven't changed in the last few years.
Reply

has anyone noticed that these are the glasses from the 20 year old SEGA MASTER SYSTEM game console??? I had one of these, it worked with CRT TV's and at a uncomfortable slow refresh-rate (it depended on the interpolation of the TV to draw the images to the left and right eye, and eventually you could "see" the glasses opening and closing because of the slow refresh-rate), but given the current state of technology by that time, it worked great!

anyway, this is exactly the same technology, but it took 20 years to come from a rough implementation to an acepptable one. LOL!

PS: I believe the guys from SEGA deserve the rightfull citation as being the first ones to implement this active-shutter-glasses, and not NVIDIA, they just made a copy of it. Reply

If the stand to hold it up is huge. Clearly the one on the bottom has moved the electronics into the base. So how do you mount it on the wall. It always amazes me how dense consumers are. Unless you are putting a TV on a wall and flat against it there is no point in a TV that is less than 4 or 5 inches since you cant see behind it any way and the base is going to be at least a foot deep to hold it up. Yet they sell them like hot cakes. Reply

One of several things that has been driving me crazy since the push into LED LCDs is that they have been going for thinner rather than better. I would hazard a guess that all of these ultra-thin TVs are edge-lit, giving worse quality than back-lighting (which requires slightly thicker TVs).

I also hate, Hate, HATE the addition of all the internet-connected BS in these new TVs. I don't want any of that, and most people who are likely to buy these probably already have a source that does everything they do (Xbox 360, PS3, HTPC, whatever). Reply

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I am NOT going to wear glasses in my living room to watch fake 2.5D pictures.

This still isn't 3D, 3D would change the image depending on where I was sitting in the room.

Give us a real 3D image projected out in front of the TV, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, this is just an attempt to raise the selling prices of current TVs.

Having just purchased 1080P LCD TVs in the last 2 years to replace our old tube TVs, it'll be another 10 years before we're ready to replace them again.

BTW, I watched "3D" back in the 80s at Disney World. This is not new technology, just slightly better because it uses active shutter glasses rather than the red/blue glasses. Same effect however... Reply

sorry to say you have NO clue what 3D tech nowadays is about. You cant even compare this what you saw "in the 80s". Do me favor see avatar or a recent 3D movie in Imax.
I myself already own a 50" 3d plasma. Real field sequential 3d will be the future, whether you accept it or not. Reply

"sorry to say you have NO clue what 3D tech nowadays is about. You cant even compare this what you saw "in the 80s". Do me favor see avatar or a recent 3D movie in Imax.
I myself already own a 50" 3d plasma. Real field sequential 3d will be the future, whether you accept it or not."

I did watch Avatar in 3D at the iMAX and honestly wasn't impressed. The color and sharpness of the picture wasn't there. It was 3D sure, but it took the image quality away in the process. I want 1080p clarity and the color clarity of the best Plasma with a 3D image. If they can't do that, they failed. Reply

Just a counterpoint from someone who is interested in this tech (mostly for more immersive gaming). I don't understand how it would even be possible to display anything but a fixed perspective with live-action footage. The only way I know of to create 3d films is with a two-camera system, so I don't know how something like you describe would work.

With computer graphics, because the images are being generated, you could have something where the display changes based on your perspective. There are HUD systems (like those cheesy VR systems that were all the rage in the mid-90's) that track your head movements and change the perspective based on that information.

Yes, having to wear glasses is not optimal, but short of holodeck technology or possibly some sort of adaptive tracking system that shoots laser beams into each eye, I don't see how you can make a floating 3d display that isn't horribly washed out/not real looking, like those old sega holograph FMV arcade games. Reply

I'm just annoyed that they think we'll spend thousands to replace our brand new TVs.

Ok, granted, if you haven't upgraded yet, fine... But even then the price gap will still be there for awhile. You can get a really nice 46" 1080P LCD for under $1K. Some of these sets they are talking about are in the $2K price range.

As for the live action footage, you have a point, using normal motion picture cameras. I'm just making the point that real 3D is a projection into empty air and that the image changes depending on where you stand. (think Avatar, but using sampled information from the real world, rendered in real time by the computer, completly photorealistic in every detail, all it takes is lots of computer power)

What we have here is enhanced 2D, since it is giving you depth information in a 2D image.

Actually, I do see there are effects that can be done well with this, that actually might be harder with true 3D. You can create a depth of field greater than you have in the physcial room, something hard to do with a 3D projection, unless of course you have a back surface to project distances on (think the walls of the holodeck).

But we are a LONG ways off from that, so whatever... :)

Hmm, I got off on a rant again, didn't I? Sigh...

My two points are this...

1. I just purchased 1080P LCDs to replace my tube TVs, I'm not replacing them again for awhile.

>>
3D is a projection into empty air and that the image changes depending on where you stand
>>

this will be a FAR, FAR way to go since as of now we still depend on what the camera (or computer) saw - there is not even a hypothetical way thinkable right now to "film" a scene with infinite view-points and then reproduce it in "real" 3d where you can walk around the scene as you like. (Say: holographic movie etc..etc)

That being said, the fact that CURRENT 3D will "only" reproduce what the director (respective the camera) saw is already a HUGE step compared to flat 2D. Dont forget that not many years ago 3d was really bad with red/green glasses...and its already come a long way..see avatar or the latest 3d imax movies.

As for the glasses....its funny how many people complain about the glasses....but then there are people who wear REAL glasses the whole day long <-- doesn't make sense, really. I don't consider the latest clear polarized 3d glasses such a big annoyance anymore, really. Its not that you need to wear a helmet or something.

Go show a little positive support for such exciting tech, instead of bashing it right away. 3D is a very cool thing and its getting better and better and more consumer-friendly.

[Quote}As for the glasses....its funny how many people complain about the glasses....but then there are people who wear REAL glasses the whole day long <-- doesn't make sense, really. I don't consider the latest clear polarized 3d glasses such a big annoyance anymore, really. Its not that you need to wear a helmet or something.[/Quote}

If I wear glasses now, I can't wear 2 pairs of glasses comfortably. So your point is ill thought out. The problem is I need 6-8 pairs of these glasses at $50 a pop. That's a LOT of money just to watch TV. No thanks. I don't know about you but I don't always watch TV alone. Reply

A computer is a generated scene it is very easy for them to place "cameras" anywhere in the scene they want. This is why you can become spectators in game or view third person or any view you like. The bigger question is will drawing the same scene 3 times and doing some post processing to come up with the final image be able to be completed fast enough to keep FPS gamers happy. On older games I can see it being done easily but people don't pay to see 3D on old bad graphics they want to see it on the latest graphics. My personal belief is that games will be able to do it easier and better then movies can because the whole scene is artificial. Reply

Yup. This 3D is still gimmicky. Those thin sets do look sexy and I'm all for it, but we really need a more thorough review on the picture quality and viewing angles. Plasma still wins hands down and I'm not sold on LCD even with LED backlighting. Was there any new OLED screens on display at CES? Reply

The problem with 3D will be market adoption and penetration into homes. Not necessarily the sets themselves, but the content that you can get on them. If there's only 3 channels and it costs you an extra $10 for them on your Cable or SAT provider, that's going to be a hard sell. They need a 3D standard so that NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS and multiple cable networks like USA and TNT etc. jump on and produce shows that take advantage of 3D. Just watching a few nature showys on Discovery and some soccer games on ESPN is a joke. Reply

I'll choose a 3D or 2.5D TV as opposed to a non-3D TV, if it comes down to me buying it.

I think you said it right, unlike computers where new technology is justified by better performance or less power, TVs are not price-justified based on the perceived experience.

TV technology is mainly considered if you've got ridiculous amounts of cash, or it's finally time to purchase a new one (the last one broke, it's a new move/new start, or you don't have one yet). In my opinion TV purchases are hardly ever bought as an upgrade to the current one, just because of the new technology - better picture just isn't that much better.

It's better to purchase cost-effective new technology that makes old technology more useful - that just doesn't happen with TVs. Reply

I agree about the thin thing. I could give a rats ass about having a paper thin tv. I want picture quality at the best price. Seems to me that Samsung is trying to convince the market to pay for thin. Not me. Reply

I'm all for thin and lite LED LCD TVs but not if they come with glossy screens. Can you tell us if any of the new thin TVs have matt finishes? New features and attractive design are nice but unless the new sets offer a display that looks better I don't think I'll be picking one up. Reply

Both my monitors are glossy and they are hardly ever a problem. The problem exists when the display is not bright enough to compete with natural light, which there are solutions for. I, for one, am a fan of glossy displays -- they are attractive. When my monitor/tv is off, they have their own aesthetic qualities that exceed that of a matte TV.

However, in support of your statement, I am a fan of having options. I'd like the ability to choose both :) Reply

While I like glossy laptop monitor, large glossy displays like TVs can be a pain. I have a 50" plasma with a glossy screen, and lights reflected on the screen are very annoying. I can turn off the lights to solve the problem, but that is not always possible. T Reply

my netbook has a glossy screen and the glare and reflections are a huge turn off, but If I had a large multi touch tv..., unless it was some sort of really fine etched glass so the display "looks" glossy but has no reflection or glare problems, then matte it is... Reply